Evaluating the Impact of Public Subsides on a Firm's PerformanceA Quasi-Experimental Aproach

  1. Duch, Néstor
  2. Montolio, Daniel
  3. Mediavilla Bordalejo, Mauro
Revista:
Documentos de trabajo ( XREAP )

Año de publicación: 2007

Número: 7

Tipo: Documento de Trabajo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Resumen

Many regional governments in developed countries design programs to improve the competitiveness of local firms. In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of public programs whose aim is to enhance the performance of firms located in Catalonia (Spain). We compare the performance of publicly subsidised companies (treated) with that of similar, but unsubsidised companies (non-treated). We use the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) methodology to construct a control group which, with respect to its observable characteristics, is as similar as possible to the treated group, and that allows us to identify firms which retain the same propensity to receive public subsidies. Once a valid comparison group has been established, we compare the respective performance of each firm. As a result, we find that recipient firms, on average, change their business practices, improve their performance, and increase their value added as a direct result of public subsidy programs.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Acosta, J., Modrego, A., 2001. Public financing of cooperative R&D projects in Spain: the concerted projects under the National R&D plan. Research Policy 30, 625–641.
  • Aerts, K., Czarniztki, D., 2004. Using innovation survey data to evaluate R&D Policy: The case of Belgium. ZEW Discussion Paper 04 – 55.
  • Almus, M., Czarnitzki, D., 2003. The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms’ innovation activities: the case of Eastern Germany. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 21, 226- 236.
  • Angrist, J., Imbens, G., Rubin, D.B., 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 444-445.
  • Arvanitis, S., Hollenstein, H., Lenz, S., 2002. The effectiveness of government promotion of advanced manufacturing technologies (ATM): An economic analysis based on Swiss micro data. Small Business Economics 19, 321-340.
  • Becker, S.O., Ichino, A., 2002. The estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity score. The Stata Journal 2, 358-377.
  • Bonnet, J., 2002. L'évaluation des programmes d'innovation financés par l'Anvar 1986-1990. Revue d'Économie Industrielle 100, 93-118.
  • Busom, I., 2000. An Empirical Evaluation of the Effects of R&D Subsidies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 9, 111-148.
  • Callejón, M., García-Quevedo, J., 2000. Economía y política del cambio tecnológico en la industria de Cataluña. Economía Industrial 335, 193-206.
  • Costa, M.T., García-Quevedo, J., 2000. Competitivitat i territori: la política industrial a Catalunya. Memòria Econòmica de Catalunya. Cambra Oficial de Comerç, Indústria i Navegació de Barcelona.
  • Corchuelo, M.B., 2006. Incentivos fiscales en I+D y decisiones de innovación. Revista de Economía Aplicada 14, 5-34.
  • Czarnitzki, D., Fier, A., 2002. Do innovation subsidies crowd out private investment? Evidence from the German service sector. Applied Economics Quaterly 48, 1-25.
  • Dehejia, R.H., Wahba, S., 1999. Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94, 1053- 1062.
  • Dehejia, R.H., Wahba, S., 2002. Propensity Score-Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies. Review of Economics and Statistics 84,151-161.
  • Duguet, E., 2003. Are R&D subsidies a substitute or a complement to privately funded R&D? Evidence from France using propensity score methods for non-experimental data. EUREQua - CNRS UMR 8594 – Working Paper.
  • Fernández, E., Junquera, B., Vázquez, C., 1996. The government support for R&D: The Spanish case. Technovation 16, 59-65.
  • Gabriele, R., Zamarian, M., Zaninotto, E., 2006. Assessing the economic impact of public industrial policies: an empirical investigation on subsidies. Department of Management and Computer Science (DISA). Paper presented at the 33rd Conference of the Association for Research in Industrial Economics, Amsterdam, 25-27 August 2006.
  • González, X., Jaumeandreu, J., Pazo, C., 2005. Barriers to innovation and subsidy effectiveness. RAND Journal of Economics 36, 930 – 950.
  • Greene, W.H., 2003. Econometric Analysis, 5th Edition. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Heijs, J., 1999. La difusión de los créditos del CDTI en el País Vasco y Navarra”. Ekonomiaz, Revista Vasca de Economía 44, 278-301.
  • Heijs, J., 2001. Política tecnológica e innovación; evaluación de la financiación pública de I+D. Consejo Económico Social, Colección de Estudios, Madrid.
  • Herrera, L., Heijs, J., 2003. “Difusión y adicionalidad de las ayudas públicas a la innovación: una estimación basada en el Propensity Score Matching. IAIF Working paper 41.
  • Lalonde, R.J., 1986. Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data. American Economic Review 76, 604-620.
  • Lenihan, H., 2004. Evaluating Irish industrial policy in terms of deadweight and displacement: a quantitative methodological approach. Applied Economics 36, 229-252.
  • Lerner, J., 1999. The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business 72, 285 – 318.
  • Meeusen, W., Janssens, W., 2001. Substitution versus additionality: Econometric evaluation by means of micro-economic data of the efficacy and efficiency of R&D subsidies to firms in the Flemish Region”, CESIT Discussion paper 2001/01.
  • Roper, S., Hewitt-Dundas, N., Love, J.H., 2004. An ex ante evaluation framework for the regional benefits of publicly supported R&D projects. Research Policy 33, 487-509.
  • Rosenbaum, P. Rubin, D.B., 1983. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrica 70, 41-55.
  • Rubin, D.B., 1974. Estimating Causal Effects for Treatment in Randomised and Nonrandomised Studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 688-701.
  • Rubin, D.B., 1977. Assignment to treatment group on the basis of covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics 2, 1-26.
  • Smith, J.A., Todd, P.E., 2004. Does Matching Overcome LaLonde’s Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators?. Journal of Econometrics 125, 305-353.
  • Zubiaurre, A., 2002. Cooperación entre empresas y centros tecnológicos en la política tecnológica vasca. Economía Industrial 346, 115-126.
  • Wallsten, S., 2000. The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. RAND Journal of Economics 13, 82 – 100.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet